alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          19,062
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,863
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          67,631
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            69,039
<LOANS>                                        243,768
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 360,356
<DEPOSITS>                                     304,350
<SHORT-TERM>                                    28,085
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,305
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,054
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 360,356
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 15,480
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,187
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   336
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,003
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,770
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,233
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      690
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (122)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,585
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,665
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.97
<LOANS-NON>                                        573
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,016
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      500
<RECOVERIES>                                       136
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,343
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 585.75 Response to inquiries.

At any time during the production years ending August 31, 2011, August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014, each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying with the moving deformable barrier test with advanced test dummies (S7.2) or the vehicles (by make, model and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying with the vehicle-to-pole test requirements (S9.1) of FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214). The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle that meets S7.2 or S9.1 is irrevocable.

[73 FR 32485, June 9, 2008]
----

**EXHIBIT      32.4**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 1, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Charles N. Eldred                |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Charles                N. Eldred                    |
|                               |   | Senior                Vice President and            |
|                               |   | Chief                Financial Officer              |
|                               |   | Public                Service Company of New Mexico |
H. Res. 350

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 27, 2002.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1542) to deregulate the Internet and high

speed data services, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by

this resolution and shall not exceed one hour and 20 minutes,

with one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu

of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary now
2

•HRES 350 EH

printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as

adopted in the House and in the Committee on the Whole.

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill

for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered

as read. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall

be in order except those printed in part B of the report of

the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question in the House or in the Committee of

the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments

as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
3

•HRES 350 EH

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 382.205 On-duty use.

No driver shall use alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions. No employer having actual knowledge that a driver is using alcohol while performing safety-sensitive functions shall permit the driver to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 24, 1995 (133), Para 133.14 Jerusalem Embassy Relocation]
[Page 1583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.133.14  jerusalem embassy relocation

  Mr. GILMAN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill of the Senate 
(S. 1322) to provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in 
Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, recognized Mr. GILMAN and Mr. 
HAMILTON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. GILMAN demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, which 
demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so the yeas 
and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOLEY, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced that further proceedings on the motion were postponed.
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe P1-RKDG method for two-dimensional Euler equations of gas dynamicsA class of nonlinearly stable Runge-Kutta local projection discontinuous Galerkin (RKDG) finite element methods for conservation laws is investigated. Two dimensional Euler equations for gas dynamics are solved using P1 elements. The generalization of the local projections, which for scalar nonlinear conservation laws was designed to satisfy a local maximum principle, to systems of conservation laws such as the Euler equations of gas dynamics using local characteristic decompositions is discussed. Numerical examples include the standard regular shock reflection problem, the forward facing step problem, and the double Mach reflection problem. These preliminary numerical examples are chosen to show the capacity of the approach to obtain nonlinearly stable results comparable with the modern nonoscillatory finite difference methods.Document ID19910015505Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsCockburn, Bernardo*(Minnesota Univ. Minneapolis., United States)*Shu, Chi-Wang*(Brown Univ. Providence, RI., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1991Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187542AD-A236842NAS 1.26:187542ICASE-91-32Accession Number91N24819Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: AF-AFOSR-0093-90PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-1145CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18605CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF DMS-88-10150Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910015505.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 389

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 389 appear at 66 FR 49873, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 389.11 General.

Except as provided in § 389.39, Direct final rulemaking procedures, unless the Administrator, for good cause, finds a rule is impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates such a finding and a brief statement for the reason for it in the rule, a notice of proposed rulemaking must be issued, and interested persons are invited to participate in the rulemaking proceedings involving rules under an Act.

[75 FR 29916, May 28, 2010]
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 195

Commending the United States military and defense contractor personnel

responsible for a successful in-flight ballistic missile defense interceptor

test on July 14, 2001, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 17, 2001

Mr. HUNTER (for himself and Mr. SPRATT) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

JULY 17, 2001

Committee on Armed Services discharged; considered under suspension of the

rules and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending the United States military and defense contractor personnel responsible for a successful in-flight

ballistic missile defense interceptor test on July 14,

2001, and for other purposes.

Whereas at 11:09 p.m., eastern daylight time on July 14,

2001, the United States successfully tested an interceptor

missile against a target Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile in flight;

Whereas the target missile was launched from Vandenburg

Air Force Base, California, and was traveling at approximately 140 miles above the Earth at a speed of greater

than 11,000 feet per second, which is more than three
2

•HRES 195 ATH

times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet, when struck

by the interceptor missile;

Whereas the interceptor missile was also traveling at a speed

greater than 11,000 feet per second at the time of impact;

Whereas more than 35,000 Americans contributed to the successful test, including the Air Force team which launched

the target missile from Vandenburg Air Force Base and

the Army team which developed the radar and kill vehicle, the Navy and Coast Guard team which provided security for the test, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization team which supervised the testing program, and

the contractor team consisting of thousands of American

scientists, engineers, and blue collar workers employed by

the prime contractors and hundreds of small businesses;

and

Whereas the House of Representatives understands that testing of ballistic missile defenses will involve many failures

as well as successes in the future, the House of Representatives nonetheless commends the effort and ingenuity of those who worked so hard to make the test a

success: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks

2 and commends the thousands of United States military

3 and Government personnel, contractors, engineers, sci4 entists, and workers who worked diligently to make the

5 July 14, 2001, missile defense intercept test a success.

Æ
Exhibit 24.14



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Richard L. Thomas do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on
my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2005 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all
things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.



/s/ Richard L. ThomasRichard L. Thomas






DATE: February 11, 2006
**Exhibit
        4**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O.
        Richins, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
    /s/ Paul O.
        Richins
 Paul
        O.
        Richins
 August
        8,
        2006
 
 
 *A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
        document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
        that
        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
        has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 13, 2009 

jm 

Order 

 

November 13, 2009 

139992 (16) 

GENE T. FAVORS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139992 

 COA: 292245 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $13.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$362.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1086.html[7/22/2015 7:42:37 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-jc55

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1086

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kathleen Goritski

Address:

5 Mcnabb Road

Lake Hopatcong, NJ, 07849

Email: kbnurse56@hotmail.com

General Comment

I find it so funny that our government thinks it can tell me how I can use my money to retire. I have worked since

 I was a teenager

and have paid my bills and my taxes. I balance my budget. This and previous government officials have taxed

 my savings, taxed

my pay check and taxed anything else they can think of. Yet this is never enough, they want more and spend and

 waste more money

than you can imagine. As far as my SS goes, I was told when I was young that it would not be there for me. At

 the rate this country

is going, I believe this to be true. If you must change SS to help people out, then so be it. I would recommend to

 that all government

employees live by the same rules you inflicted on the American people. No pensions, turn them into 401K plans.

 Health care only to 

be Medicare at age 65 like the rest of us. 

I am sure that if all government employees had to live like us, there would be a different attitude.

Thank you,

Kathleen Goritski
#### George McVie, Respondent, v. Henry G. McNaughton, Appellant.

Judgmentand order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Landon, J.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Alfacell  Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert D. Love,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date:  June 9, 2005


                                        /s/ Robert D. Love
                                        ------------------
                                        Name:  Robert D. Love
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer and
                                               Chief Accounting Officer)
#### J. Henry Abbott and others, *Respondents, v.*Charles E. Woodruff and others, *Appellants.*Same *v.*Same.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
(May 27, 1913.)

#### GEORGE A. PERRY et al., Respondents, v. FARMERS’ UNION DITCH CO., LTD., a Corporation, Appellant.

[132 Pac. 1156.]

Findings of Fact — Sufficiency of Evidence.

1. *Held,*that the findings of fact are supported by the evidence.

APPEAL from the District Court- of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Chas. P. McCarthy, Judge.

Action to compel the defendant company to deliver to the plaintiffs a certain amount of water. Judgment for plaintiffs.

*Affirmed.*

Cavanah, Blake & MacLane, for Appellant.

Martin & Martin, for Respondents.

Counsel cite no authorities on point decided.

*157SULLIVAN, J.

This action was brought to compel the defendant company to deliver fifty-six inches of water or such proportion thereof as is turned in to the headgate of the Farmers’ Union Canal by the watermaster of Boise river, for the use and benefit of .the plaintiffs. After a trial of the case the court made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and directed that the alternative writ of mandate theretofore issued be made permanent and final.

Certain findings of the court are made the basis of the assignments of error. It is contended that said findings are not supported by the evidence. After a careful examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that there is ample evidence in the record to sustain said findings.

Some question is raised in regard to the scope of the findings and judgment. However, on an examination thereof, it is clear that the court did not intend and did not require any water to be furnished for the irrigation of the land above the lateral running across said land, known as the BerridgeHeron-Poor Farm lateral.

The judgment is *affirmed*and costs on appeal are awarded to the respondents.

Ailshie, C. J., and Stewart, J., concur.